The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has set aside an order passed by the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Lucknow, which had recalculated and enhanced the compensation payable for acquired land, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi allowed a petition filed by the U.P. Expressway Industrial Development Authority (UPEIDA) under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the Authority’s order dated May 3, 2025.
The land in question was acquired in 2021, and an award dated February 14, 2023 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, fixing compensation at ₹35 lakh per hectare, amounting to ₹90.87 lakh. The landowner thereafter sought a reference, which was allowed by the Authority on March 23, 2024, enhancing the compensation to ₹40 lakh per hectare with an additional 10% increase, taking it to ₹44 lakh per hectare.
Subsequently, the landowner filed a review application seeking further enhancement, which was initially rejected on August 27, 2024. That rejection was set aside by the High Court in January 2025, and the matter was remanded to the Authority to reconsider whether the benefit of the 2020 circle rates could be granted in entirety. Pursuant to the remand, the Authority partly allowed the review application and recalculated the compensation by treating the acquired land as situated on a connecting road in a developing revenue village, applying Clauses 12 and 14 of the circle rate list.
UPEIDA assailed this review order before the High Court, contending that the Authority failed to consider that the Collector, Raebareli had already fixed the market rate for land situated on the connecting road in Village Ehar at ₹40 lakh per hectare, as reflected in a sale deed dated August 25, 2021. It was argued that this relevant material ought to have been taken into account during the review proceedings.
The landowner opposed the plea, arguing that UPEIDA was raising a new ground at the review stage. However, the Court accepted UPEIDA’s submission that since the review itself had been entertained on the basis of new pleas raised by the landowner, the petitioner could not be precluded from raising additional grounds in response.
Finding merit in the petitioner’s contention, the High Court set aside the review order dated May 3, 2025 and remanded the matter to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Lucknow, directing it to decide the case afresh after considering all pleas raised by both parties and affording them an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Appearances:
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhineet Jaiswal, Pritish Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Kumar Pandey, Ashutosh Verma, Aviral Raj Singh, C.S.C., Dhruv Kumar Singh, Palash Banerjee, Ritwick Rai, Vaibhav Tiwari
